Wolf et al v. Clark County Department of Family Services et al

Filing 45

ORDER Re: 43 Stipulated Protective Order. Counsel shall comply with the requirements of Local Rule IA 10-5, the Ninth Circuit's decision in Kamakana, 447 F.3d 1172, and the procedures outlined in this Order with respect to any documents filed under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 12/13/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

BRUCE WOLFE,

)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
v.
)
)
CLARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY )
SERVICES, et al.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
)

Case No. 2:17-cv-02084-JAD-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 43)

16

Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated protective order pertaining to documents in

17

the custody of Defendant Clark County Department of Family Services (Docket No. 43), which the

18

Court approved to facilitate discovery in this case.1 This order reminds counsel that there is a

19

presumption of public access to judicial files and records. A party seeking to file a confidential

20

document under seal must file a motion to seal and must comply with the Ninth Circuit’s directives in

21

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006).

22

The Court has adopted electronic filing procedures. Attorneys must file documents under seal

23

using the Court’s electronic filing procedures. See Local Rule IA 10-5. Papers filed with the Court

24

under seal must be accompanied with a concurrently-filed motion for leave to file those documents

25

under seal. See Local Rule IA 10-5(a).

26
27
28

1

On November 29, 2017, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated protective order pertaining to
documents in the custody of Defendants Oregon Department of Human Services and Washington
Department of Social and Human Services. Docket No. 40.

1

The Court has approved the blanket protective order to facilitate discovery exchanges. But there

2

has been no showing, and the Court has not found, that any specific documents are secret or

3

confidential. The parties have not provided specific facts supported by declarations or concrete

4

examples to establish that a protective order is required to protect any specific trade secret or other

5

confidential information pursuant to Rule 26(c) or that disclosure would cause an identifiable and

6

significant harm. The Ninth Circuit has held that there is a presumption of public access to judicial files

7

and records, and that parties seeking to maintain the confidentiality of documents attached to

8

nondispositive motions must show good cause exists to overcome the presumption of public access. See

9

Kamakana 447 F.3d at 1179. Parties seeking to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to

10

dispositive motions must show compelling reasons sufficient to overcome the presumption of public

11

access. Id. at 1180. All motions to seal must address the applicable standard and explain why that

12

standard has been met. The fact that a court has entered a blanket stipulated protective order and that

13

a party has designated a document as confidential pursuant to that protective order does not, standing

14

alone, establish sufficient grounds to seal a filed document. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

15

331 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476

16

(9th Cir. 1992).

17

If the sole ground for a motion to seal is that the opposing party (or non-party) has designated

18

a document as subject to protection pursuant to the stipulated protective order, the movant must notify

19

the opposing party (or non-party) at least seven days prior to filing the designated document. The

20

designating party must then make a good faith determination if the relevant standard for sealing is met.

21

To the extent the designating party does not believe the relevant standard for sealing can be met, it shall

22

indicate that the document may be filed publicly no later than four days after receiving notice of the

23

intended filing. To the extent the designating party believes the relevant standard for sealing can be met,

24

it shall provide a declaration supporting that assertion no later than four days after receiving notice of

25

the intended filing. The filing party shall then attach that declaration to its motion to seal the designated

26

material. If the designating party fails to provide such a declaration in support of the motion to seal, the

27

filing party shall file a motion to seal so indicating and the Court may order the document filed in the

28
2

1

public record.2

2

IT IS ORDERED that counsel shall comply with the requirements of Local Rule IA 10-5, the

3

Ninth Circuit’s decision in Kamakana, 447 F.3d 1172, and the procedures outlined above, with respect

4

to any documents filed under seal. To the extent any aspect of the stipulated protective order may

5

conflict with this order or Local Rule IA 10-5, that aspect of the stipulated protective order is hereby

6

superseded with this order.

7

DATED: December 13, 2017

8
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

In the event of an emergency motion, the above procedures shall not apply. Instead, the movant
shall file a motion to seal and the designating party shall file a declaration in support of that motion to seal
within three days of its filing. If the designating party fails to timely file such a declaration, the Court may
order the document filed in the public record.
3